The policy cycle framework as mentioned in the book by Knill and Tosun (2012) has

played a key role in the development of public policy.

a. Discuss in what ways the policy cycle framework has contributed to this role.
b. Discuss the role of power in different stages of the policy cycle.
c. Is any stage of the policy cycle more important than others in affecting the final
result of the policy? If you agree then specify which this stage is and what
arguments you would give support of your reasoning.

Theoretical Approaches to Policy Making:

Socioeconomic school of policy making as described by Schmidt (1995). It directly
connects socio economic changes in society to policy-making.
Acc to this, public policy is a response to the social and economic problems that a
society is confronted with.

The social cleavage approach by put forward by Lipset and Rokken (1967) outlines a
broader range of social problems that are related to policy-making by means of
political parties that defines their political position. It shows the foundation of why
political parties exist, largely because they address a lasting division between
societal groups on policy problems.

Intro
Policy cycle: This models the policy process as a series of political activities which
consists of the following phases:
Problem definition and agenda setting
Policy formulation and adoption
Implementation
Evaluation with potential consequence of policy termination or reformation)

According to the rational approach, the policy process is sequential. Policy process
starts with the identification of a societal problem and its placement on
governments agenda. Subsequently, various policy proposals are formed, from
which one will be adopted by the decision-makers. In the next stage, the adopted
policy is enacted/implemented, before finally its impacts are evaluated. The last

stage leads straight back to the first stage, which indicates that the policy cycle is
continuous and unending.
Criticism of the cyclical model based on a sequence of policy stages:
It has been emphasized that the model hardly corresponds to empirical reality, as
different stages might overlap. For example a reformation of policies might occur at
the implementation stage or some phases might be skipped.
In the book, the authors depart from the classical cyclical approach by not assuming
a sequential model of the policy process. They consider it more useful to conceive
the different policy stages as potential analytical lenses on the policy making
process.

Chapter 4: point b. in the question. Overview of general theories that are applied in
order to explain policy variation and policy change.
Lowis policy typology:
Policies determine politics. It consists of
Distributive policies: related to measures which affect distribution of resources from
the government to particular recipients (costs are usually assigned to all tax payers)
Redistributive policies: transfer of resources from one social group to another
(conflicts are much more likely)
Regulatory policies: specify conditions and constraints for individual or collective
behavior (define rules for human behavior, degree of conflict can vary)
Constituent policies: which create/ modify states institutions (lowest degree of
public attention)

Initially compelling, on closer inspection, clarity of typologies dissolve and

conceptual ambiguities among the policy types can be identified which Lowi himself
acknowledge. Moreover its difficult to call a policy distributive or redistributive.
Another issues: is the typology complete or not? E.g. morality policy?
Wilsens Typology:
Distinguishes between policies based on whether the related costs and benefits are
widely distributed or narrowly concentrated.
When C&B are widely concentrated, govt gets minor or no opposition.
When C are conc and benefits diffused, a govt may encounter opposition from
dominant interest groups

When C are diffused and B concentrated, govt with be confronted with a relevant
interest group that is favorable to their reform endeavors, indicating clientelistic
politics to be the likely outcome. Most politically feasible environment for policy
change as it offers relatively concentrated benefits.
Wilsens typology is analytically more compelling since it is more precise about the
characteristics of policy making and actors involved in it.

Chapter 5
The Context of Policy Making
National Institutions
Constitutions and constitutional courts
The most essential institution in a political system is its constitution, which is a set
of fundamental principles and formal rules according to which a state is
government. In some polities (like New Zealand and the UK) the constitutions are
flexible, meaning that they can be changed by regular majorities in the legislative
body. In other polities (like United States, Canada and Australia) constitutions are
rigid and any changes must be approved by super majorities (i.e. two thirds or
more). Reason for having rigid constitutions is so that they cannot be easily
modified to deal with short term political conflicts. (For examples changing the rules
for re-election in favor of the pol party in power.
Constitutions define the most basic rules of game in structuring and restricting the
exercise of government power. Constitution determines the centralization of power,
whether a state is organized in accordance with Unitarism (sovereignty is
concentrated at the level of single central govenment) or Federalism (sovereignty is
shared across several level of governments). Constitutions also establish the three
branches of government and assign them formal rights to make, implement and
interpret laws.
The three branches of government (horizontal division of power)
Executive: In principle in charge of implementing public policy and has the authority
to administer bureaucracy but in reality, governments are in charge of formulating
policies as well.
Legislature: often referred to as parliament has the competency to make legislation.
Mostly one and sometimes tw Lower and upper house. Lower house is elected
directly and is more influential in terms of policy making.
Judiciary: Judiciary is composed of various levels of courts that interpret and apply
the law and resolve disputes emerging among private and public actors. Judiciary in
independent of other branches of the government. Judiciary can affect the policy
making through its sentences so in many cases, the selection of the Supreme Court
judges is a political process. In US, judges are nominated by the president, who
places his ideological stamp on the courts.

Chapter 5: Problem Definition and Agenda setting

Problem definition: The path to agenda-setting:
1. Identification of harm
2. Describe what causes them
3. Assigns blame to those causing them
Problem definition sets the stage for the other components of the decision making
process, because the way a problem is defined to a certain extent determines the
feasible set of policy responses through which the problem can be resolved.
In most cases, there is no ideal conception of a problem. People might conceive
problems in a different way. Different actors may have different perceptions of the
same empirical phenomenon. It generally holds that the actor proposing the first
definition of the problem has the strategic advantage.
Problem definition is has two features:
1. Objective Data
2. The question of if and to what extent these objective criteria are actually
acknowledged
Problem definition is not about the neutral realization of the existence of the
problem but their social construction. A problem might only exist only because
people think it exists.
Turning of a social problem into a political problem is characterized by conflict.
Politics is a means to resolve conflicts about how to govern a community.
Organization of conflict is important and is achieved through scope (who is involved)
and bias (how the audience is involved). Interplay of these two dimensions
determines what happens. This can occur through privatization, by restricting the
scope of the conflict through trying to keep it out of the public domain
(socialization) In this context, interest groups and even more so political parties play
a key role in socializing conflict.
In this regard, there are two kinds of actors. The first is the so-called expander who
seeks to publicize the issue to different societal groups in order to get them
involved in the policy debate. They bring up an issue which is currently not under
debate.
The content of this issue will be evaluated by other individuals called the
containers who might be adversely affected if this issue enters the agenda stage
and eventually becomes a law.
The power distribution perspective in agenda setting:
The origins of research into agenda setting relate to the pluralism-elitism debate of
the 1950s and 1960s. The key aspect was the notion of power and its distribution in
the society. Regarding agenda setting, the debate asserted that different groups of

actors seek to increase the probability than an issue will receive collective attention
by attempting to raise an issues salience and/or support its support.
In a similar vein but an inverse perspective, Bachrach and Baratz argued that the
political power of decision makers could be exercised through the banning certain
issues from agenda i.e. non-decisions. They could use tactics to decrease the
probability of agenda inclusion for an issue, thus helping to preserve the status quo.
Schattschneider 1960 emphasized that rather than the actors actively participating
in agenda setting it is wider public domain which is key to understanding politics. He
argued that strategically, it is in the best interest of the contestant who is losing a
battle over an issue to bring more and more fence-sitters into the conflict, thus
socializing them, until the balance of forces changes. Conversely, it is advantageous
for the one who is winning to contain the scope of the conflict so as not to upset his
favorable balance of power. Hence, issue battles are often won or lost over the
combatants success either at getting the public involved or excluding them.